Command + Conquer 3 screens

Kreeeee · 10 May 2006 at 20:47

Efour2 said:
So what if it looks good, if it dosnt play good.
I have to agree with the oldskool SC player.

Last good RTS i played was Dawn of War.

If this version of C&C can match that then "yipee"

High-five for logic!

C&C hit its peak with RA1 imo. RA2 was good as well but EA just have this idiotic habit of tacking graphics onto a cruddy game and then shipping it out. It's a real shame.

Killerkebab said:
Judging by the screenshots, I have trouble seeing where any developer could possibly go wrong after that. Sure it won't be Starcraft, but I've yet to see a game that equals it as far as online play goes.

I think that's why no recent RTS has impressed me, the multiplayer is ALWAYS lacking. Multiplayer should be a huge part of ANY strategy game.

Inquisitor · 10 May 2006 at 20:50

Kreeeee said:
High-five for logic!

C&C hit its peak with RA1 imo. RA2 was good as well but EA just have this idiotic habit of tacking graphics onto a cruddy game and then shipping it out. It's a real shame.

I think that's why no recent RTS has impressed me, the multiplayer is ALWAYS lacking. Multiplayer sshould be a huge part of ANY strategy game.

Agreed. RA1 was my favourite, it only went downhill after that.

WatchTower · 10 May 2006 at 21:56

Wasn't C&C Generals based on the C&C games but was not made by the same people that created the C&C games. I't would be nice to see how good this is. I always think I'm good at C&C until I play human players and then I get Pwned. I think it is because I play has I'd play against the AI and this is fruitless against human players. You may as well build as many tanks as you can and just hope you have more than the other guy in multiplayer.

Kreeeee · 10 May 2006 at 22:43

WatchTower said:
Wasn't C&C Generals based on the C&C games but was not made by the same people that created the C&C games.

No, it was a shoddy RTS and then EA decided to tack the C&C name onto it for extra sales.

HangTime · 10 May 2006 at 22:45

Looks very nice in stills, got a hunch that in motion however the illusion may fade somewhat with suspect animation and very poor performance.

decmatt · 10 May 2006 at 22:51

Looks very good, will try the demo though as I find with C&C games theyre either brilliant or poor

Smithy · 11 May 2006 at 00:09

Inquisitor said:
Agreed. RA1 was my favourite, it only went downhill after that.

kbc · 11 May 2006 at 02:28

Hmm... no quotes from the actual interview (from the E3 expo)... ? =/

For anyone who's read the interview, there are some massive improvements to the gameplay and not just fancy graphics.

"We're going to let you build structures and armies, move your forces, and attack territories on a high level map of the world. You'll resolve conflicts over territory in RTS battles and be able to take your forces from the world map into battle with you - and what happens during the battle will affect the world map as well. This mode allows you to create your own campaign game."

As well as the usual "kill the miners" attitude, the AI has also been updated...

For C&C3, we want an AI that is either adaptive to your style of play or gives you the option up front to fight a turtler or a rusher. We might represent this by having different AI opponents you can play against (each one having a different style of play) or we could simply give you options up front (e.g. how aggressive the AI should be during the game session).

Our goal is to create an AI that will give you a satisfying play experience no matter what style of play you prefer… and we're making some great strides in that direction.

Generals was good, pretty impressive stereotyping used as well... =/ one drawback was the lack of naval units... Hopefully in C&C3 - we will be able to control both air and sea units...

DJammyRasta · 11 May 2006 at 10:59

i have never understood why people dislike generals so much... especially with zero hour the amount of units and tactics for each general is the most i have seen in a rts game

how can this be a bad thing??

never actually got around to playing starcraft so i cant comment on that being the best game ever made ever ever... but i still think generals is a great game

before that in C&C i love the original C&C and then red alert... but then they got stoopid with random jokes of futuristic weapons and technologies that were not necessary

Gman · 11 May 2006 at 12:11

I think the thing that spoiled it for me in Generals was the power of the mass destruction weapons.

You could get all your base well sorted and bag half the base is gone and your being over run. Now this could be me and my bad tactics though.

DJammyRasta · 12 May 2006 at 11:23

if ** sat around for 5min while a nuke is ticking down then yes that is u

i personally dont even bother with superweapons, if ** opponent desperately wants to take out a building they will be able to so its not worth my time

NathanE · 12 May 2006 at 12:41

DJammyRasta said:
i have never understood why people dislike generals so much... especially with zero hour the amount of units and tactics for each general is the most i have seen in a rts game

how can this be a bad thing??

never actually got around to playing starcraft so i cant comment on that being the best game ever made ever ever... but i still think generals is a great game

before that in C&C i love the original C&C and then red alert... but then they got stoopid with random jokes of futuristic weapons and technologies that were not necessary

Generals was a good game... I don't think many people will dispute that. The thing most people don't like about it (inc myself) is that it used the Command & Conquer brand name when clearly it has nothing to do with the C&C universe (in the sense of tiberium, GDI and NOD...) No hardcore C&C fan from the heydays will ever accept Generals as being a true C&C game.

HangTime said:
Looks very nice in stills, got a hunch that in motion however the illusion may fade somewhat with suspect animation and very poor performance.

Because of course the SAGE engine is reknowned for its poor animation and poor performance... :confused:

Seriously, what is your basis for saying that or is it just pure speculation with a sprinkling of EA hatred?

Gerard · 12 May 2006 at 13:36

kbc said:
Generals was good, pretty impressive stereotyping used as well... =/ one drawback was the lack of naval units... Hopefully in C&C3 - we will be able to control both air and sea units...

Remember the cruisers in RA1? God i loved those things, long distance ownage.

gord · 12 May 2006 at 13:54

Gman said:
I think the thing that spoiled it for me in Generals was the power of the mass destruction weapons.

You could get all your base well sorted and bag half the base is gone and your being over run. Now this could be me and my bad tactics though.

None of my online matches ever got to that stage. Tactics!

DJammyRasta · 12 May 2006 at 16:05

NathanE said:
Generals was a good game... I don't think many people will dispute that. The thing most people don't like about it (inc myself) is that it used the Command & Conquer brand name when clearly it has nothing to do with the C&C universe (in the sense of tiberium, GDI and NOD...) No hardcore C&C fan from the heydays will ever accept Generals as being a true C&C game.

Because of course the SAGE engine is reknowned for its poor animation and poor performance... Seriously, what is your basis for saying that or is it just pure speculation with a sprinkling of EA hatred?

ive heard a lot of people that damn right hate the game.. ok it might not be a C&C game ill admit that but its still a good rts.

Kreeeee · 12 May 2006 at 18:20

DJammyRasta said:
never actually got around to playing starcraft so i cant comment on that being the best game ever made ever ever... but i still think generals is a great game

Gah!

StarCraft is what spoilt me and made me expect so much more in an RTS game. No RTS fan should go without playing it online!

A2Z · 12 May 2006 at 18:26

RA2 > *

Smithy · 12 May 2006 at 18:27

Kreeeee said:
Gah!

StarCraft is what spoilt me and made me expect so much more in an RTS game. No RTS fan should go without playing it online!

agreed, we (me and my mates) used to play SC lan for hours on his lan setup he had in his house.
It defines gameplay over graphics.

p4radox · 12 May 2006 at 20:04

I really hope they make an RA theme game on this engine (SAGE?) - I prefer that story line and I'd love to see tesla towers in 3D with the ubiquitous *mmmmmmmmZAP* sound.

Generals was a good game, I still play it at LANs, but RA2 had the playability just right for me.

Killerkebab · 12 May 2006 at 20:17

Kreeeee said:
Gah!

StarCraft is what spoilt me and made me expect so much more in an RTS game. No RTS fan should go without playing it online!

I am not good enough to play it online. It would be like the local under 12 football squad challenging Barcelona to a game.